10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r Human Brain Mapping 39:332–343 (2018) r

Vicariously Touching Products through Observing

Others’ Hand Actions Increases Purchasing
Intention, and the Effect of Visual Perspective in
This Process: An fMRI Study

Yi Liu ,1* Xuelian Zang,1,2 Lihan Chen,3 Leonardo Assumpç~

ao,2 and
Hong Li1,4*
1
College of Psychology and Sociology and Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Affective and Social
Cognitive Science, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518060, China
2
General and Experimental Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, 80539, Germany
3
School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences and Beijing Key Laboratory of Behavior and
Mental Health, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China
4
Center for Intelligence Development and Protection, Shenzhen Institute of Neuroscience,
Shenzhen, 518057, China

r r

Abstract: The growth of online shopping increases consumers’ dependence on vicarious sensory experi-
ences, such as observing others touching products in commercials. However, empirical evidence on
whether observing others’ sensory experiences increases purchasing intention is still scarce. In the present
study, participants observed others interacting with products in the first- or third-person perspective in
video clips, and their neural responses were measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI). We investigated (1) whether and how vicariously touching certain products affected purchasing
intention, and the neural correlates of this process; and (2) how visual perspective interacts with vicarious
tactility. Vicarious tactile experiences were manipulated by hand actions touching or not touching the
products, while the visual perspective was manipulated by showing the hand actions either in first- or
third-person perspective. During the fMRI scanning, participants watched the video clips and rated their
purchasing intention for each product. The results showed that, observing others touching (vs. not touch-
ing) the products increased purchasing intention, with vicarious neural responses found in mirror neuron
systems (MNS) and lateral occipital complex (LOC). Moreover, the stronger neural activities in MNS was
associated with higher purchasing intention. The effects of visual perspectives were found in left superior
parietal lobule (SPL), while the interaction of tactility and visual perspective was shown in precuneus and
precuneus-LOC connectivity. The present study provides the first evidence that vicariously touching a
given product increased purchasing intention and the neural activities in bilateral MNS, LOC, left SPL
and precuneus are involved in this process. Hum Brain Mapp 39:332–343, 2018. C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
V

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of this article.
Contract grant sponsor: China Postdoctoral Science Foundation;
Contract grant number: 2016M602502; Contract grant sponsor:
Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province; Contract
grant number: 2017A030310534; Contract grant sponsor: Shenzhen
Peacock Plan; Contract grant number: KQTD2015033016104926.
*Correspondence to: Yi Liu, College of Psychology and Sociology,
Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China. E-mail: liuyi_psy@163.com
and Hong Li, College of Psychology and Sociology, Shenzhen
University, Shenzhen, China. E-mail: lihongszu@szu.edu.cn
Received for publication 12 July 2017; Revised 21 September 2017;
Accepted 3 October 2017.
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23845
Published online 11 October 2017 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

V

r Vicariously Touching Products Increases Purchasing Intention
Key words: vicarious experience; purchasing intention; mirror neuron system; visual perspective; fMRI
r r
INTRODUCTION
“Sensory marketing” refers to a type of strategy used to
promote products consumption by delivering product’s
sensory information to potential consumers. The term
emphasizes the importance of the role played by sensory
experiences in consumer behavior [Krishna, 2012; Krishna
and Schwarz, 2014]. In traditional shopping, firsthand sen-
sory experience is important for product judgments. For
example, consumers are more confident in their attitude
towards a product when they can touch it, rather than
otherwise [Peck and Childers, 2003]. However, not all
types of shopping outlets enable their consumers to
engage in direct sensory experiences, such as online stores.
The continuous growth of online shopping requires
retailers to generate new forms of virtual tactile inputs to
improve consumer’s shopping experience and increase
purchasing intention. This issue could be addressed by
inducing vicarious tactile experiences, for example, by
showing others’ experiences with the products of interest.
To date a few studies have attempted to deliver prod-
uct’s sensory information, however by asking participants
to deliberately imagine the sensations they could have
from the products. For example, Escalas [2004] used
advertisement texts to encourage a group of consumers to
imagine themselves wearing the shoes described in the ad.
The author found that the group showed a more favorable
attitude to the ad, when compared to a control group of
consumers that did not imagine the shoe experience. In a
similar design, Yoon and Park [2012] showed participants
a picture of a cup of coffee with first-person narratives
describing the coffee smell. The authors explicitly asked
participants to relate the stimuli to their own experiences.
Participants reported the extent to which they imagined
the self in the ad (i.e., self-referencing), and their attitude
to the ad (i.e., likeability, favorability, and delightfulness).
The results showed that the level of self-referencing pre-
dicted consumers’ attitude towards the coffee brand.
The aforementioned studies reveal that sensory informa-
tion through imagination influences consumers’ behavior.
However, a few, but important points were overlooked by
the methodological approaches employed in these studies.
First, the method used to deliver the sensory messages, i.e.,
explicitly instructing consumers to imagine or recall their
own sensory experiences, is rarely used, and somewhat
impractical in real marketing. Second, the authors measured
only consumers’ attitude to the ads or brand, but did not
directly measure consumers’ purchasing intention. Last but
not least, these studies did not demonstrate how the brain
processes the imagined or recalled sensations. When it comes
to product marketing, consumers are more commonly
r 333
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
exposed to methods, such as advertisements in which the
sensory information of a given product is experienced by
others (i.e., actors). For instance, showing a TV commercial, in
which an actor touches a soft blanket will likely induce a
potential consumer to vicariously experience the softness of
the product. Such experience may thereafter have a direct
influence on the consumers’ purchasing intention. However,
whether this kind of vicarious sensory experiences can effec-
tively increase purchasing intention has not yet been investi-
gated. Moreover, the underlying neural substrates of this
process are also unknown. These issues will be addressed in
the present study. To induce vicarious sensory experiences,
we asked participants to observe an actor’s hand interacting
(touch vs. no-touch) with a series of products, and directly
rate their purchasing intentions for these products. To dem-
onstrate the neural substrates of vicarious sensory experien-
ces, participants’ brain activities were recorded using
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).
When observing object-directed/transitive hand actions,
observers automatically simulate both the hand move-
ments and the sensory consequences of the actions [Kilner
et al., 2007; Schutz-Bosbach and Prinz, 2007; Wolpert et al.,
1995]. In social neuroscience, vicarious neural responses to
others’ hand movements were found in motor-related
regions such as premotor cortex and parietal cortex. These
brain regions were core sites of mirror neuron system
(MNS), in which the brain regions were activated when
individuals performed the actions themselves, as well as
when observing others performing the same actions [Iaco-
boni and Dapretto, 2006; Iacoboni et al., 1999; Kilner et al.,
2009; Molenberghs et al., 2012; Rizzolatti and Craighero,
2004]. When observing others being touched, vicarious
neural responses to others’ tactile experiences were found
in sensory-related regions such as the primary and second-
ary somatosensory regions [Ebisch et al., 2008; Keysers
et al., 2004], which were also included in the MNS [Key-
sers and Gazzola, 2009]. In respect of purchasing behavior,
the tactile experiences with the product are particularly
important for inferring the product’s physical properties,
such as the shape, weight, and temperature [Peck and
Childers, 2003]. These tactile sensations can be vicariously
experienced through the visualization of the hands moving
and touching the products. Therefore, we are interested in
the vicarious neural responses in both motor-related and
sensory-related components in the MNS. The activation of
these regions could be regarded as the neural representa-
tion of vicarious experiences of action and sensation.
Given the neural bases of the vicarious experiences
to actions and tactile sensation aforementioned, the
current study used fMRI to measure the vicarious neural
responses of participants when they observed others’ hand
r

r Liu et al.
interactions with products. In doing so, we aimed to inves-
tigate whether and how observing others’ hand actions
(i.e., touch vs. no-touch) towards a product affect purchas-
ing intention, and what the neural correlates underlying
this process are. Regarding vicarious experience, it is
known that it helps us understand others’ physical sensa-
tions, action intention and emotional states during social
interaction[Gallese et al., 2004; Iacoboni and Dapretto,
2006]. In the same vein, vicariously experiencing a product
might be helpful to infer its sensory features, which may
contribute to purchasing intention. Therefore, we hypothe-
size that vicariously touching a product through observing
others’ hand actions will increase purchasing intention.
What is more, vicarious neural responses should be found
in MNS (i.e., premotor cortex, somatosensory cortex) and
correlated with the increased purchasing intention.
In addition, previous research demonstrated that vicari-
ous motor and sensory experiences, and the corresponding
neural responses are sensitive to visual perspectives (i.e.,
first-person perspective (1PP) or third-person perspective
(3PP)). However, the neural representation of visual per-
spective and its effects on vicarious experiences in previ-
ous findings have been mixed. Jackson et al. [2006]
showed that 1PP observation of non-object-directed/
intransitive actions induced stronger neural activities in
motor cortex than 3PP did, thus suggesting that 1PP facili-
tated vicarious motor representation in the brain. Simi-
larly, observing painful stimulation on others’ hand in 1PP
also increased observer’s somatosensory activation com-
pared to the 3PP condition, suggesting that 1PP enhances
vicarious neural representation of sensations [Canizales
et al., 2013]. Schaefer et al. [2009] on the other hand,
showed that both 1PP and 3PP observation activated
somatosensory cortex during observation of touch, but
that 1PP observation involved the anterior part of the pri-
mary sensory cortex, while 3PP involved the posterior
part. In addition to the motor and somatosensory neural
activities mentioned above, 1PP (vs. 3PP) action observa-
tion or imitation showed activation of cuneus, while 3PP
(vs. 1PP) action imitation activated lingual gyrus, surperior
occipital gyrus and inferior frontal gyrus [Jackson et al.,
2006]. In Ruby and Decety [2001], simulating actions in
1PP (vs. 3PP) activated the inferior parietal lobule and
somatosensory cortex in the left hemisphere. While 3PP
(vs. 1PP) action simulation activated the precuneus, poste-
rior cingulate, right inferior parietal, and frontopolar cor-
tex [Ruby and Decety, 2001]. In a behavioral study,
Vandenbroucke et al. [2015] asked participants to observe
the hand of an actor being stimulated with painful input
in the 1PP or 3PP, while the participants themselves
received a vibrotactile stimulation on their own hand in
75% of the trials. Participants’ task was to report whether
they felt the vibrotactile stimulation. False alarmed detec-
tion of the stimulation (i.e., reporting presence of vibration
when it was actually absent) was regarded as vicarious
tactile experiences. The results showed that 1PP (vs. 3PP)
r 334
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
increased the correct detection of the vibrotactile stimula-
tion, while the vicarious experience was unaffected by
visual perspective. Ultimately, the collection of mixed find-
ings demonstrate that the role of visual perspective can
vary depending on the nature of the vicarious experiences
(actions, pain, touch, etc.), and a broad region of the brain
is involved in perspective taking. Therefore, such variabil-
ity raises the questions as to whether the visual perspec-
tive (during the observation of others’ hand action
towards a product) may interact with vicarious tactile
experiences and benefit purchasing intention, and which
brain regions are involved. To answer these questions, the
hand actions presented in this study were viewed by partic-
ipants either in 1PP or 3PP. In addition, after identification
of the brain regions sensitive to the interaction between
vicarious tactility and visual perspective, how these regions
connected with other brain regions, and how the connectiv-
ity were modulated by vicarious tactility, visual perspective
and the interaction of them were also explored.
To sum up, the aims of the current study are to investi-
gate (1) whether and how observing others’ hand interac-
tions with products affect purchasing intention, and its
neural correlates; and (2) the effect of visual perspective in
this process. We used video clips exhibiting products (com-
mon objects or food) with hand actions as stimuli. Vicarious
tactility was manipulated using hand actions operating the
products (referred to as touch), compared with hand actions
around the products (referred to as no-touch). Visual per-
spective was manipulated by showing the hand actions in
1PP or 3PP. Participants watched the video clips and made
judgments about their purchasing intention for each prod-
uct. Using fMRI, vicarious neural activities were accessed
and associated with self-reported purchasing intention. We
hypothesize that vicarious tactile experiences (touch vs. no-
touch) will increase purchasing intention. Moreover, we
predict that this process will be associated with vicarious
neural responses in MNS. Last but not least, we will shed
light on the effect of visual perspectives (1PP and 3PP) on
vicarious neural responses and purchasing intention.
METHOD
Participants
Twenty-five participants (age range 5 19–28, M 5 22.60,
SD 5 2.84 years, 13 females) were recruited as paid volun-
teers. All were right-handed and had normal or corrected-
to-normal vision. Written informed consent was given
prior to participation. This study was approved by the
ethics committee of Peking University.
Stimuli and Procedure
Fifty-six products (28 types of food and 28 objects; see
Supporting Information for itemized list) were used for
purchasing intention rating. Each product was exhibited
r

r Vicariously Touching Products Increases Purchasing Intention
Figure 1.
(a) Example of one of the products shown in the touch (TA) vs.
no-touch actions (NTA) in either 1PP or 3PP, which resulted in
4 conditions (TA-1PP, NTA-1PP, TA-3PP, NTA-3PP). Each prod-
uct was randomly assigned to only one of the conditions for
each subject. (b) behavioral results for purchasing intention in
different conditions. (c) behavioral results for subjective rating
with hand movements in a 3 seconds (s) video clip. A 2 3 2
factorial design with Tactility (touch action (TA) vs. no-touch
action (NTA)) and Perspective (1PP vs. 3PP) was adopted in
the current experiment. Tactility was manipulated by show-
ing the stimulus hands touching or not touching the prod-
ucts, whereas perspective was manipulated by showing the
actions in 1PP or 3PP (see Fig. 1a for an illustration). The 56
products were randomly assigned to 4 conditions (TA-1PP,
NTA-1PP, TA-3PP, NTA-3PP) for each subject. Each product
was shown only once to each subject, resulting in 14 trials in
each condition. The results of the 2 (TA vs. NTA) 3 2 (1PP
vs. 3PP) ANOVA on the market price of the products
confirmed that the price of the products in 4 conditions were
matched (ps > 0.4).
The fMRI experimental procedure was designed in a
slow event-related manner in 2 functional scans. For each
trial, a 3s video clip (4.28 3 2.78) was presented on a black
background at the center of the screen with the name of
the product above the video to help participants recognize
the product. In the sequence a 4-point Likert scale in white
letters was presented for 3s. The four numbers (i.e., 1,2,3,4)
on the screen corresponded to the four buttons present in
two response boxes (2 buttons per response box). The four
buttons were held by participants with two fingers of each
r 335
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
on preferences, demands and familiarity to the products in dif-
ferent conditions. Error bars represent standard error of the
mean. TA: touch action; NTA: no-touch action; 1PP: first-person
perspective; 3PP: third-person perspective; *P < 0.05. [Color fig-
ure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
hand (i.e., left-middle, left-index, right-index, right-middle).
Participants had to press a button to make a judgment as to
what extent they would like to buy the presented product
(i.e., 1: not at all, 4: very much). After the button press, the
corresponding choice number on the screen changed into
green. Thereafter, a central fixation cross was presented for
nine seconds, followed by the next trial.
After the fMRI scanning, pictures of each product (with-
out hand actions) were shown to the participants at the
center of the screen. Participants were asked to rate their
preference, demand and familiarity to each product using
8-point scales (1: not at all, 8: very much). Three of the
eight buttons (1–8) were pressed successively as the rating
scores of preference, demand and familiarity respectively.
fMRI Data Acquisition and Analysis
Brain images were acquired using a 3.0T GE Signa
MR750 scanner (GE Healthcare; Waukesha, WI) with a
standard head coil. Functional images were acquired by
using T2-weighted, gradient-echo, echo-planar imaging
(EPI) sequences sensitive to BOLD contrast (64 3 64 3 32
matrix with 3.75 3 3.75 3 5 mm3 spatial resolution,
repetition time 5 2,000 ms, echo time 5 30 ms, flip
r

r Liu et al.
angle 5 908, field of view 5 24 3 24 cm). A high-resolution
T1-weighted structural image (512 3 512 3 180 matrix
with a spatial resolution of 0.47 3 0.47 3 1.0 mm3,
repetition time 5 8.204 ms, echo time 5 3.22 ms, flip
angle 5 128) was acquired before the functional scans.
Functional images were preprocessed using SPM12 (the
Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, London, UK).
The functional data were first time corrected to compen-
sate for delays associated with acquisition time differences
between slices. Functional images were realigned to the
first scan to correct for head movement between scans; six
movement parameters (translation; x, y, z and rotation;
pitch, roll, yaw) were extracted for further analysis in the
statistical model. The anatomical image was co-registered
with the mean realigned functional image and further nor-
malized to the standard Montreal Neurological Institute
(MNI) template. The functional images were resampled to
3 3 3 3 3 mm3 voxels, normalized to the MNI space using
the parameters of anatomical normalization and then spa-
tially smoothed using an isotropic of 8 mm full-width
half-maximum (FWHM) Gaussian kernel.
Fixed effect analyses were first conducted by applying a
general linear model (GLM) to the fMRI data. All four
conditions (TA-1PP, NTA-1PP, TA-3PP, NTA-3PP) were
included in the model with reaction time in each trial as a
regressor of no interest (for a similar method see also
Knutson et al. [2007]). The design matrix also included the
realignment parameters to account for any residual
movement-related effect. A box-car function was used to
convolve with the canonical hemodynamic response in
each condition. Whole-brain random effect analyses were
then conducted on the contrast images of TA vs. NTA
(collapsing 1PP and 3PP) to access the vicarious tactile
neural responses regardless of visual perspective. The con-
trast values of TA vs. NTA were extracted (using Mars-
BaR: http://marsbar.sourceforge.net) for the brain regions
that showed significant main effect of Tactility. The con-
trast values were correlated with the differential purchas-
ing intention (TA vs. NTA) to link the brain activity with
subjective purchasing intention. Apart from the between-
subject correlations, we also extracted beta values for each
trial to check whether the trial-wise brain activity in these
brain regions was correlated with the purchasing intention
for each product. After Fisher’s r to z transformation, the
correlation coefficients of brain activity and purchasing
intention within each subject were subjected to one-sample
t-tests to test whether the within-subject correlations were
significantly different from zero in the group level.
To explore the effect of visual perspective while observ-
ing others’ hand actions towards a product, similar analy-
ses were conducted on the contrast images of 1PP vs. 3PP
(collapsing TA and NTA) and on the contrast images of
interaction between Tactility and Perspective (vector: TA-
1PP: 1, TA-3PP: -1, NTA-1PP: -1, NTA-3PP: 1) to access
the brain regions showing significant main effect of Per-
spective and its interaction with Tactility.
r 336
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
Following the identification of the brain regions sensitive to
the interaction between tactility and visual perspective, we
were also interested in how these regions connected with the
brain regions sensitive to tactility and visual perspective
respectively. Thus, we conducted generalized psychophysio-
logical interaction analyses (gPPI) [McLaren et al., 2012] to
find the brain regions that are functionally connected with
the seed regions and modulated by tactility, visual perspec-
tive or their interaction. Seed regions are defined as spheres
with 5-mm-radius, centered at coordinates of the peak voxels
in the brain regions that showed significant Tactility 3 Per-
spective interaction across all participants. The time series of
each seed region was extracted. The psychophysiological
interaction regressors were calculated as the product of brain
activity and a vector coding for each condition. The psycho-
physiological interaction regressors reflected the interaction
between each psychological condition (TA-1PP, NTA-1PP,
TA-3PP, NTA-3PP) and the activation of the seed regions.
The functional connectivity images modulated by Tactility,
Perspective, or Tactility 3 Perspective were subsequently
subjected to one-sample t-tests to find the brain regions func-
tionally connected with the seed regions. Finally, the beta val-
ues of the functional connectivity in different conditions were
extracted and correlated with purchasing intention.
Brain activations in the whole brain analyses were defined
using a threshold of P < 0.05 under false discovery rate
(FDR) correction with single voxel threshold of P < 0.001.
RESULT
Behavioral Results
We calculated the self-reported purchasing intention in
TA-1PP, NTA-1PP, TA-3PP and NTA-3PP conditions
respectively. A 2 3 2 repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted on the purchasing intention with
Tactility (TA vs. NTA) and Perspective (1PP vs. 3PP) as
within-subject variables. The results showed a significant
main effect of Tactility (F(1,24) 5 17.389, P < .001, g2 5 .420)
with stronger purchasing intention for the products exhib-
ited in the touch compared to no-touch condition (Fig. 1b).
Consistent with our hypothesis, the vicarious tactility
increased purchasing intention. However, neither the main
effect of Perspective (F(1, 24) 5 .030, P 5 .864, g2 5 .001) nor
the Tactility x Perspective interaction (F(1, 24) 5 .422,
P 5 .522, g2 5 .017) were significant. A similar 2 3 2 ANOVA
was conducted on the reaction times, however, neither the
main effects nor the interaction were significant (ps >.1).
The post-scanning rating scores of preferences, demands
and familiarity to the products were also subjected to 2 3
2 ANOVAs. Results showed that, for preferences and
demands, the main effect of Tactility were significant
(preferences: F (1,24) 5 7.777, P 5 .010, g2 5 .245; demands:
F (1,24) 5 8.341, P 5 .008, g2 5 .258) with higher scores for
TA products than NTA products (preferences: P 5 .010;
demands: P 5 .008). Neither the main effect of Perspective
r
 10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r Vicariously Touching Products Increases Purchasing Intention r

TABLE I. Brain activity and functional connectivity in different contrasts

MNI Coordinates
Cluster Peak
Region X y z Size Z

Brain activity
TA vs. NTA
Left SI/SII 257 225 32 1038 4.87
Left PMv 260 5 32 311 4.76
Right SI/SII 63 216 26 1202 5.65
Right PMv 57 8 32 a 5.72
Left LOC 245 270 27 154 4.79
Right LOC 42 264 24 335 4.82
1PP vs. 3PP
Left SPL 224 249 71 330 4.05
Left middle occipital gyrus (EBA) 245 270 5 110 4.58
Left superior occipital gyrus 218 285 20 101 4.19
Left precentral gyrus (M1) 233 210 56 75 4.07
Tactility 3 Perspective interaction
Precuneus 29 261 47 341 4.03
Right inferior frontal gyrus 45 20 32 291 4.37
Supplementary motor area 3 26 47 112 3.65
Left medial frontal gyrus 236 41 8 83 4.16
Functional connectivity with precuneus
Tactile 3 Perspective interaction
Left LOC 248 273 210 85 3.69
Right LOC 54 267 213 76 3.50

a: the same cluster with right SI/SII. TA: touch action; NTA: no-touch action; 1PP: first-person perspective; 3PP: third-person perspec-
tive; PMv: ventral premotor cortex; SPL: superior parietal lobule; SI: primary somatosensory cortex; SII: secondary somatosensory cor-
tex; EBA: extrastriate body area; M1: primary motor cortex; LOC: lateral occipital complex.

nor the Tactility x Perspective interaction were significant
(Fs < 1, ps > .3). For the familiarity rating scores, neither
the main effects nor the interaction were significant (Fs < 1,
ps > .4) (Fig. 1c). These results suggest that vicarious tactile
sensation not only increased purchasing intention, but also
increased the subjective preferences and demands of the
products. Moreover, we found the increased preference
scores (TA vs. NTA) were correlated with the increased
purchasing intention (TA vs. NTA) (r (25) 5 .465, P 5 .019),
while the similar correlations were not found for demand
or familiarity scores (demands: r (25) 5 .315, P 5 .126;
familiarity: r (25) 5 –.017, P 5 .935).
fMRI Results
Whole-brain analysis on TA vs. NTA contrast revealed
that, increased neural activities were found in MNS, i.e.,
bilateral primary and secondary somatosensory cortex (SI/
SII) (left: x/y/z 5 257/–25/32, z 5 4.87, k 5 1,038; right: x/
y/z 5 63/–16/26, z 5 5.65, k 5 1,202), and ventral premotor
gyrus (PMv) (left: x/y/z 5 260/5/32, z 5 4.76, k 5 311;
right: x/y/z 5 57/8/32, z 5 5.72, k 5 1,202). Similar neural
responses were also found in lateral occipital complex
(LOC, left: x/y/z 5 245/–70/–7, z 5 4.79, k 5 154; right: x/
y/z 5 42/–64/–4, z 5 4.82, k 5 335) (Table I, Fig. 2a). More-
over, the activation of right PMv in TA vs. NTA was posi-
tively correlated with the differential purchasing intention
(TA minus NTA) (r(25) 5 .496, P 5.012, Fig. 2b). Apart
from the between-subject correlation, we were also inter-
ested in whether these vicarious activities in single trial
were correlated with the purchasing intention for each
product within-subject. Thus, for each subject, we
extracted beta values for each product in bilateral MNS
and LOC and correlated those with purchasing intention.
After Fisher-z transformation, one-sample t-tests revealed
significant (above zero) within-subject correlation coeffi-
cients in bilateral SI/SII (left: t(24) 5 2.536, P 5.018; right:
t(24) 5 2.220, P 5.036) as well as in right PMv
(t(24) 5 2.134, P 5.043), but not in left PMv (t(24) 5 .907, P
5.373) or LOC (left: t(24) 5 1.638, P 5 .115; right:
t(24) 5 1.247, P 5.224). These results suggest that vicarious
tactile experiences increased purchasing intention through
the vicarious responses in bilateral MNS, which is consis-
tent with our hypothesis.
To the effect of visual perspectives, similar whole-brain
analysis on 1PP vs. 3PP was conducted first to test
whether perspective taking would induce specific brain
activity independent of tactility. The results showed that,
compared with 3PP, stronger activation to 1PP was found
in left superior parietal lobule (SPL, x/y/z 5 224/–49/71,
z 5 4.05, k 5 330), left extrastriate body area (EBA, x/y/
z 5 245/–70/5, z 5 4.58, k 5 110), left superior occipital
gyrus (SOG, x/y/z 5 218/–85/20, z 5 4.19, k 5 101) and
left precentral gyrus (M1, x/y/z 5 233/–10/56, z 5 4.07,

r 337 r

r Liu et al.
Figure 2.
(a) Brain regions activated during the observation of touch (TA)
vs. no-touch actions (NTA). (b) Cross-subject correlation
between contrast values of TA vs. NTA in PMv and the differen-
tial purchasing intention (TA vs. NTA). (c) Brain regions acti-
vated during observations in 1PP vs.3PP. (d) Cross-subject
correlation between contrast values of 1PP vs. 3PP in SPL and
k 5 75) (Table I, Fig. 2c). These left hemispheric activations
in 1PP vs. 3PP were similar to previous findings [Ruby
and Decety, 2001]. Although purchasing intention in 1PP
and 3PP was not significantly different from one another,
the contrast values of 1PP vs. 3PP in left SPL were posi-
tively correlated with the differential purchasing intention
(1PP-3PP) (r(25) 5 .524, P 5 .007, Fig. 2d). The within-
subject correlations between beta values in each trial and
purchasing intention for each product were also signifi-
cantly above zero in left SPL (t(24) 5 3.939, P 5 .001) and
M1 (t(24) 5 5.844, P < .001) but not in left EBA (t(24) 5 .633,
P 5 .533) or left SOG (t(24) 5 .162, P 5 .873). These results
suggest that, although the 1PP did not increase purchasing
intention significantly, stronger activation of the left SPL
during 1PP observation (vs. 3PP) was correlated with
stronger purchasing intention.
In addition, the effect of visual perspective was also
modulated by tactility and resulted in significant Tactile x
Perspective interaction in precuneus (x/y/z 5 29/–61/47,
z 5 4.03, k 5 341) and other brain regions (Table I, Fig. 3a).
Beta values in different conditions were extracted and
showed that, in the TA condition, the activation of the pre-
cuneus was stronger in 3PP than in 1PP (t(24) 5 3.547,
P 5 .002), while the pattern was reversed in NTA condition
(t(24) 5 22.375, P 5 .026) (Fig. 3a). These results suggest
that tactility modulated the effect of visual perspective.
r 338
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
the differential purchasing intention (TA vs. NTA). TA: touch
action; NTA: no-touch action; 1PP: first-person perspective; 3PP:
third-person perspective; PMv: ventral premotor cortex; SPL:
superior parietal lobule *P < 0.05. [Color figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Using the precuneus as a seed region, gPPI analyses
showed that, the functional connectivity between precu-
neus and bilateral LOC (left: x/y/z 5 248/–73/–10,
z 5 3.69, k 5 85; right: x/y/z 5 54/–67/–13, z 5 3.50, k 5 76)
was also sensitive to Tactile x Perspective interaction. The
precuneus-LOC connectivity increased in 1PP compared
with 3PP when observing touch actions, while a decreased
connectivity in 1PP compared with 3PP was observed
when tactile information was limited by no-touch actions
(Fig. 3b). We calculated the differential purchasing inten-
tion (i.e., (TA1PP-NTA1PP) – (TA3PP-NTA3PP)), and corre-
lated it with brain activities that showed significant
Tactility 3 Perspective interaction. However, no significant
correlations were found (ps > 0.1). Of note, the precuneus-
LOC functional connectivity was positively correlated with
purchasing intention for products in the TA condition,
after collapsing 1PP and 3PP conditions (left: r(25) 5 .424,
P 5 .035; right: r(25) 5 .494, P 5 .012), while the correlations
were negative in NTA condition (left: r(25) 5 –.498,
P 5 .011; right: r(25) 5 –.493, P 5 .012). To compare the cor-
relation coefficients in TA and NTA conditions, bootstrap
re-sampling approach [Lunneborg, 1985] was used to esti-
mate the 95% confidence interval (CI) of each correlation
coefficient (based on 1,000 bootstrap samples). The signifi-
cant difference of the correlations between TA and NTA
conditions was supported by the lack of overlapping
r
 10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r Vicariously Touching Products Increases Purchasing Intention r

Figure 3.
(a) Brain regions showing significant tactility x perspective inter- precuneus-LOC functional connectivity and purchasing intention
action and the beta values of different conditions in precuneus. in TA and NTA conditions. TA: touch action; NTA: no-touch
(b) Brain regions functionally connected with precuneus and action; 1PP: first-person perspective; 3PP: third-person perspec-
modulated by tactility x perspective interaction. Beta values of tive; LOC: lateral occipital complex. *P < 0.05. [Color figure can
the precuneus-LOC functional connectivity in different condi- be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
tions are also shown. (c) Cross-subject correlations between

95% CI of the correlation coefficients in the respective
conditions (TA: left: 95% CI 5 [.007 .722]; right: 95%
CI 5 [.127 .769]; NTA: left: 95% CI 5 [–.759 –.311]; right:
95% CI 5 [–.723 –.301]) (Fig. 3c). Similarly, the functional
connectivity and purchasing intention correlations were cal-
culated for 1PP and 3PP conditions respectively collapsing
TA and NTA conditions. However, no significant correla-
tion was found in 1PP or 3PP condition (ps > 0.1). Taken
together, the effects of visual perspective on precuneus
activity, precuneus-LOC connectivity and its association
with purchasing intention were dependent on tactile acces-
sibility. Similar gPPI analyses using other brain regions (i.e.,
brain regions showed significant Tactility x Perspective
interaction) as seed regions did not show any functional
connectivity with other brain regions that was significantly
modulated by psychophysical interaction.
We also analyzed the data separately for food and objects.
The results (both behavior and fMRI results) were quite
similar for these two types of products. Therefore, we did
not report the results of food and objects separately.

r 339 r

r Liu et al.
DISCUSSION
The current study investigated whether and how vicari-
ously interacting with products through observing others’
hand actions affect purchasing intention, and the effect of
visual perspectives in this process. Participants observed
others’ hand actions towards a number of products, and
rated their own purchasing intention during fMRI scan-
ning. Behaviorally, the present study provided the first
empirical evidence that, observing others touching a prod-
uct significantly increased purchasing intention, as well as
the subjective preference and demand of the product. At
the neural level, the vicarious neural responses were found
in bilateral PMv, SI/SII, and LOC. Moreover, the neural
activities in PMv and SI/SII were associated with
increased purchasing intention. Compared to 3PP, watch-
ing others’ actions in 1PP activated SPL, EBA and M1 in
left hemisphere. Although visual perspectives did not sig-
nificantly increase purchasing intention, the neural activity
in left SPL was associated with purchasing intention. In
addition, tactility of the actions also modulated the effect
of visual perspective. This modulation was manifested in
precuneus activity and its functional connectivity with
bilateral LOC. The increased precuneus-LOC functional
connectivity was associated with increased purchasing
intention when observing others’ direct contact with the
products, while the association was reversed when no tac-
tile information was observed in others’ actions.
Previous studies demonstrated that the PMv was the typ-
ical region showing vicarious neural activity for hand
actions/motion [Iacoboni and Dapretto, 2006; Iacoboni
et al., 1999; Molenberghs et al., 2012; Morin and Grezes,
2008], while the somatosensory regions such as SI and SII
showed vicarious neural activity for tactile sensations
[Ebisch et al., 2008; Gazzola and Keysers, 2009]. Our results
showed that, observing actions of the “touch” condition (vs.
no-touch) activated both PMv and SI/SII, suggesting that
vicariously experiencing a product involved sensory-related
activity for tactile sensations as well as motor-related activ-
ity for hand movements in bilateral MNS. These results are
consistent with previous findings that the premotor and
parietal network were preferentially active during object-
directed actions, rather than during non-object-directed
actions [Agnew et al., 2012]. Moreover, vicarious neural
responses were positively correlated with self-reported pur-
chasing intention. These neural activities in bilateral MNS
indicate embodied mental simulation of others’ hand
actions and tactile sensations [Ando et al., 2015; Gallese,
2007, 2014; Grafton, 2009]. Such simulated experiences
could have provided sensory information about the prod-
ucts, which helped increase participants’ purchasing inten-
tion. The correlation between the increased purchasing
intention and the increased preferences to the TA products
(vs. NTA products) suggests that preference of the products
might serve as the psychological mechanism behind of
increase purchasing intention as function of tactile sensation.
r 340
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
However, this speculation of the psychological mechanisms
underlying the effect of vicarious sensory experiences on pur-
chasing intention needs to be tested in further research.
Furthermore, bilateral LOC was also activated when
watching touch actions compared with no-touch actions.
LOC is known as the central region for shape processing
of graspable objects [Kourtzi and Kanwisher, 2001; Kourtzi
et al., 2003], perceived through both visual and tactile
modalities [Amedi et al., 2002]. On this ground, we pro-
pose two possible explanations for the activation of the
LOC in our study. First, in contrast to no-touch condition
in which the product was shown in front view, in the
touch condition the product was seen from different
angles. It is possible that LOC activation reflected visually
shape processing through observing the products from dif-
ferent angles. The second explanation stems from the idea
that, observing others touching the products may have
activated the LOC to process the shapes through vicarious
tactile sensations rather than a visual process. Visual per-
spective is a manipulation that may affect vicarious sensa-
tions [Canizales et al., 2013] but not visual angles of the
products. Thus, if the sole cause of LOC activation in TA
vs. NTA contrast was the variance of angles in which
observers viewed the products (i.e., products were shown
from different angles in TA vs. static front view in NTA
condition), then LOC activity should not be sensitive to
visual perspective. Given that we found that the functional
connectivity of LOC and precuneus was modulated by the
interaction of tactility and visual perspective (discussed
below), we hold the latter explanation more plausible, that
is, LOC activation was at least partially related to vicarious
tactile sensations. Nevertheless, the current experimental
design does not allow us to fully discriminate whether the
LOC activation stems from seeing the products from dif-
ferent angles or from vicariously touching the products; an
issue worth investigating in future research.
We also investigated the effect of visual perspectives dur-
ing the observation of others touching the products. How-
ever, behaviorally, the effect of visual perspective on
subjective purchasing intention was not significant.
Whereas at the neural level, regardless of tactility, 1PP vs.
3PP activated SPL and EBA in left hemisphere. Moreover,
the activation of the left SPL in 1PP vs. 3PP was associated
with increased purchasing intention in 1PP vs. 3PP.
Because the 1PP is congruent to “self” perspective and
induces self-attribution of the observed actions or sensa-
tions, and the 3PP is more likely to attribute the actions or
sensation to others, 1PP was more tightly coupled to MNS
than 3PP for stronger mental imagery or simulation of the
actions and sensations [Jackson et al., 2006]. The SPL, a core
cite in MNS [Iacoboni et al., 1999; Molenberghs et al., 2012]
was found to be responsible for motor imagery [Hanakawa
et al., 2003]. The EBA was also found to be activated for
motor imagery and self-generated body movements [Asta-
fiev et al., 2004]. Thus, the stronger activation of left SPL
and EBA suggest a stronger motor imagery or mental
r

r Vicariously Touching Products Increases Purchasing Intention
simulation when observing actions in 1PP rather than 3PP.
In addition, the left rather than right hemispheric activation
in 1PP vs. 3PP was consistent with the findings in Ruby
and Decety [2001]. Although the visual perspective did not
show significant effect on subjective purchasing intention,
we found that stronger activation of the left SPL was corre-
lated with stronger purchasing intention. The correlation
results suggest that, compared to 3PP, 1PP benefited pur-
chasing intention through inducing left SPL activation for
motor imagery.
The findings regarding tactility and visual perspective
interaction in the precuneus, is in line with previous stud-
ies investigating perspective taking, that showed precu-
neus activation when participants incorporated an
allocentric viewpoint, or engaged in external agency attri-
bution [Farrer and Frith, 2002; Ruby and Decety, 2001;
Sperduti et al., 2011; Vogeley et al., 2004]. For example,
Ruby and Decety [2001] asked participants to imagine
themselves (1PP) or another person (3PP) performing an
object-directed action. The mental simulation in 3PP vs.
1PP activated precuneus, which was said to index the
overactivation of self-representation to distinguish self
from others in 3PP. In the present study, we found precu-
neus activation in 3PP vs. 1PP for touch actions, which is
consistent with Ruby and Decety [2001]. The lack of precu-
neus activation during 1PP condition could have been
caused by a ‘blurred’ self-other distinction, as 1PP is con-
gruent with the visual perspective of observing self. Inter-
estingly, we observed a reversed pattern of the precuneus
activity in 3PP vs. 1PP when participants observed no-
touch actions, thus suggesting that the role of self-other
distinction in perspective taking depends on the expected
tactile sensations of the action. In our study, vicarious tac-
tile sensations of the products were important towards
purchasing, as participants expected tactile contact with
products following hand movements. Thus, it is possible
that the unexpected lack of contact in the no-touch condi-
tion increased self-other distinction and precuneus
activity.
In addition, the functional connectivity between precu-
neus and bilateral LOC also showed tactility x perspective
interaction, with an opposite pattern of the activation of
the precuneus. Given that the precuneus activity repre-
sented self-other discrimination [Kircher et al., 2002; Kjaer
et al., 2002; Ruby and Decety, 2001], and LOC activity rep-
resented shape processing through tactile sensation [Reed
et al., 2004], we speculate that the precuneus-LOC connec-
tivity reflected tactile agency attribution to compensate for
the decreased activation of precuneus. Moreover, the asso-
ciation between precuneus-LOC connectivity and purchas-
ing intention was modulated by tactile accessibility. When
tactile information was available (touch actions), stronger
precuneus-LOC connectivity was associated with stronger
purchasing intention, whereas when tactile information
was limited (no-touch actions), stronger connectivity was
associated with weaker purchasing intention. The results
r 341
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
concerning functional connectivity suggest that observing
others touching the products increased purchasing inten-
tion not only through vicarious neural activities in MNS
(i.e., PMv, SI/SII), but also through precuneus-LOC con-
nectivity which might be related to agency attribution.
Nevertheless, the speculation of the functional meaning of
the precuneus and precuneus-LOC connectivity requires
further investigation.
Of note, no reward-related brain regions were found
between conditions in whole brain analysis. One possible
reason may be that we only asked participants to rate their
purchasing intention, not actually purchase the products
or directly rate the extent to which they like/want the
products. Up to now, neural mechanism of purchasing
decision making has been rarely investigated. There is
only one study conducted by Knutson et al. [2007] that
showed that nucleus accumbens, insular and medial pre-
frontal cortex were activated during purchase-related deci-
sion making. The activation of nucleus accumbens was
correlated with ones’ preference for products but not with
actual purchase decision. The insular and medial prefron-
tal cortex were activated for “gain-loss” calculation when
the price information was given. For real consumption,
price may dominate purchase decision. Thus, in order to
obtain the pure effect of vicarious tactile experiences, we
did not provide price information. Since price is essential
for purchasing decision making and was not provided in
our design, we measured purchasing intention instead.
Although the relationship between purchasing intention
and actual purchase has been shown to be modulated by
factors such as the type of product [new vs. existing, dura-
ble vs. nondurable; Morwitz et al., 2007], self-reported pur-
chasing intention has been widely used as a proxy
measurement for purchase behavior [Chang and Wildt,
1994; Guido et al., 2010; Schlosser, 2003]. An interesting
avenue for future research would be to investigate the
effects of vicarious tactile experiences in real purchasing
decision making towards items whose prices are also
manipulated. It would be informative to assess whether
the reward system is involved in this process.
One limitation of our study regards the small sample size,
i.e., 25 subjects with their age ranging from 19 to 28 years,
which might have limited our findings. There might be not
enough power to detect effects that could survive conserva-
tive correction for multiple tests (i.e., correlation analyses)
with a sample of 25 subjects. Thus, the significance of the
correlations between purchasing intention and neural activi-
ties were reported without correction for multiple tests in
different brain regions. In addition, future studies should
test larger samples so that individual differences, i.e., gen-
der, income, age, could also be investigated.
In conclusion, our study provided first empirical evi-
dence that vicarious experiences (i.e., tactility) acquired
while observing others touching products increased
purchasing intention by increasing the neural activity in
bilateral MNS. The effect of visual perspective was found
in left SPL, and the interaction of tactility and visual
r

r Liu et al.
perspective was demonstrated in precuneus activity and
precuneus-LOC connectivity. The precuneus-LOC connec-
tivity was associated with purchasing intention but
depended on the accessibility of tactility. Our findings
help to understand how the human brain functions when
a subject observes others’ object-directed actions in the
context of purchasing. What is more, it allows marketing
researchers to develop more effective advertising strategies
to stimulate consumption.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We have no conflicts of interest to declare.
REFERENCES
Agnew ZK, Wise RJ, Leech R (2012): Dissociating object directed
and non-object directed action in the human mirror system;
implications for theories of motor simulation. PLoS One 7:
e32517.
Amedi A, Jacobson G, Hendler T, Malach R, Zohary E (2002):
Convergence of visual and tactile shape processing in the
human lateral occipital complex. Cereb Cortex 12:1202–1212.
Ando A, Salatino A, Giromini L, Ricci R, Pignolo C, Cristofanelli
S, Ferro L, Viglione JD, Zennaro A (2015): Embodied simula-
tion and ambiguous stimuli: The role of the mirror neuron sys-
tem. Brain Res 1629:135–142.
Astafiev SV, Stanley CM, Shulman GL, Corbetta M (2004): Extrastriate
body area in human occipital cortex responds to the performance
of motor actions. Nat Neurosci 7:542–548.
Canizales DL, Voisin JI, Michon PE, Roy MA, Jackson PL (2013):
The influence of visual perspective on the somatosensory
steady-state response during pain observation. Front Hum
Neurosci 7:849.
Chang TZ, Wildt AR (1994): Price, product information, and pur-
chase intention: An empirical study. J Acad Mark Sci 22:16–27.
Ebisch SJ, Perrucci MG, Ferretti A, Del Gratta C, Romani GL,
Gallese V (2008): The sense of touch: Embodied simulation in
a visuotactile mirroring mechanism for observed animate or
inanimate touch. J Cogn Neurosci 20:1611–1623.
Escalas JE (2004): Imagine yourself in the product: mental simula-
tion, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of
Advertising 33:37–48.
Farrer C, Frith CD (2002): Experiencing oneself vs another person
as being the cause of an action: The neural correlates of the
experience of agency. Neuroimage 15:596–603.
Gallese V (2007): Embodied simulation: From mirror neuron sys-
tems to interpersonal relations. Novartis Found Symp 278:
3–12. discussion 12–19, 89–96, 216–221.
Gallese V (2014): Bodily selves in relation: Embodied simulation
as second-person perspective on intersubjectivity. Philos Trans
R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 369:20130177.
Gallese V, Keysers C, Rizzolatti G (2004): A unifying view of the
basis of social cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 8:396–403.
Gazzola V, Keysers C (2009): The observation and execution of
actions share motor and somatosensory voxels in all tested
subjects: Single-subject analyses of unsmoothed fMRI data.
Cereb Cortex 19:1239–1255.
Grafton ST (2009): Embodied cognition and the simulation of
action to understand others. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1156:97–117.
r 342
10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r
Guido G, Peluso AM, Provenzano M (2010): Influence of brand
personality-marker attributes on purchasing intention: The role of
emotionality. Psychol Rep 106:737–751.
Hanakawa T, Immisch I, Toma K, Dimyan MA, Van Gelderen P,
Hallett M (2003): Functional properties of brain areas associ-
ated with motor execution and imagery. J Neurophysiol 89:
989–1002.
Iacoboni M, Dapretto M (2006): The mirror neuron system and the
consequences of its dysfunction. Nat Rev Neurosci 7:942–951.
Iacoboni M, Woods RP, Brass M, Bekkering H, Mazziotta JC,
Rizzolatti G (1999): Cortical mechanisms of human imitation.
Science 286:2526–2528.
Jackson PL, Meltzoff AN, Decety J (2006): Neural circuits involved
in imitation and perspective-taking. Neuroimage 31:429–439.
Keysers C, Gazzola V (2009): Expanding the mirror: Vicarious
activity for actions, emotions, and sensations. Curr Opin Neu-
robiol 19:666–671.
Keysers C, Wicker B, Gazzola V, Anton JL, Fogassi L, Gallese V
(2004): A touching sight: SII/PV activation during the observa-
tion and experience of touch. Neuron 42:335–346.
Kilner JM, Friston KJ, Frith CD (2007): Predictive coding: An
account of the mirror neuron system. Cogn Process 8:159–166.
Kilner JM, Neal A, Weiskopf N, Friston KJ, Frith CD (2009): Evi-
dence of mirror neurons in human inferior frontal gyrus. J
Neurosci 29:10153–10159.
Kircher TT, Brammer M, Bullmore E, Simmons A, Bartels M,
David AS (2002): The neural correlates of intentional and inci-
dental self processing. Neuropsychologia 40:683–692.
Kjaer TW, Nowak M, Lou HC (2002): Reflective self-awareness
and conscious states: PET evidence for a common midline
parietofrontal core. Neuroimage 17:1080–1086.
Knutson B, Rick S, Wimmer GE, Prelec D, Loewenstein G (2007):
Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron 53:147–156.
Kourtzi Z, Erb M, Grodd W, Bulthoff HH (2003): Representation
of the perceived 3-D object shape in the human lateral occipital
complex. Cereb Cortex 13:911–920.
Kourtzi Z, Kanwisher N (2001): Representation of perceived object
shape by the human lateral occipital complex. Science 293:
1506–1509.
Krishna A (2012): An integrative review of sensory marketing:
Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behav-
ior. J Consum Psychol 22:332–351.
Krishna A, Schwarz N (2014): Sensory marketing, embodiment,
and grounded cognition: A review and introduction. J Consum
Psychol 24:159–168.
Lunneborg CE (1985): Estimating the correlation coefficient: The
bootstrap approach. Psychol Bull 98:209–215.
McLaren DG, Ries ML, Xu G, Johnson SC (2012): A generalized
form of context-dependent psychophysiological interactions
(gPPI): A comparison to standard approaches. Neuroimage 61:
1277–1286.
Molenberghs P, Cunnington R, Mattingley JB (2012): Brain regions
with mirror properties: A meta-analysis of 125 human fMRI
studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:341–349.
Morin O, Grezes J (2008): What is “mirror” in the premotor cor-
tex? A review. Neurophysiol Clin 38:189–195.
Morwitz VG, Steckel JH, Gupta A (2007): When do purchase
intentions predict sales? Int J Forecast 23:347–364.
Peck J, Childers TL (2003): To have and to hold: The influence of
haptic information on product judgments. J Marketing 67:35–48.
Reed CL, Shoham S, Halgren E (2004): Neural substrates of tactile
object recognition: An fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp 21:236–246.
r
 10970193, 2018, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23845 by Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Wiley Online Library on [16/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r Vicariously Touching Products Increases Purchasing Intention r

Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004): The mirror-neuron system. Annu
Rev Neurosci 27:169–192.
Ruby P, Decety J (2001): Effect of subjective perspective taking
during simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency.
Nat Neurosci 4:546–550.
Schaefer M, Xu B, Flor H, Cohen LG (2009): Effects of different view-
ing perspectives on somatosensory activations during observation
of touch. Hum Brain Mapp 30:2722–2730.
Schlosser AE (2003): Experiencing products in the virtual world:
The role of goal and imagery in influencing attitudes versus
purchase intentions. J Consum Res 30:184–198.
Schutz-Bosbach S, Prinz W (2007): Perceptual resonance: Action-
induced modulation of perception. Trends Cogn Sci 11:
349–355.
Sperduti M, Delaveau P, Fossati P, Nadel J (2011): Different brain
structures related to self- and external-agency attribution: A
brief review and meta-analysis. Brain Struct Funct 216:151–157.
Vandenbroucke S, Crombez G, Loeys T, Goubert L (2015):
Vicarious experiences and detection accuracy while observing
pain and touch: The effect of perspective taking. Atten
Percept Psychophys 77:1781–1793.
Vogeley K, May M, Ritzl A, Falkai P, Zilles K, Fink GR (2004):
Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent
of human self-consciousness. J Cogn Neurosci 16:817–827.
Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1995): An internal model
for sensorimotor integration. Science 269:1880–1882.
Yoon S-J, Park JE (2012): Do sensory ad appeals influence brand atti-
tude? J Bus Res 65:1534–1542.

r 343 r